Why have we failed to integrate design into organizations?

As I am preparing myself for the panel discussion on Thursday about “Design Leadership in Flux x”, I am reflecting on how Design has tried to find its place in the business world and in product companies.

We talk a lot about: THE VALUE OF DESIGN. We are focused on providing measurable impact to stakeholders that proves the value to the business. We have been doing this for years. There is a lot of data around that proves this. So why does it feel like Design is still not integrated into the business, and is still excluded from strategic decision making?

I found one possible answer in an Interview with Greg Satell (Author of the Cascades: How to Create a Movement that Drives Transformational Change) in the Podcast “You are not so smart” by David McRaney.

I realized that, we may have fallen for the fallacy of the information deficit model. This assumes that people lack the information to make a change. That all they need is the facts. But these facts won’t generate change, because they do not create the same emotional reaction in others as they do in us.

Facts are not bad. We should have them, but we also need a strategy for dealing with resistance to change. Because, resistance hinders change, not the lack of data or information.

Why data alone is not enough

Because of the risk vs reward calculation that each person subconsciously does, when they encounter new information. For example:

• When someone is just updating their knowledge about something — like “Robin Williams died” — in this case the person just needs to contact with the information to become a carrier of the information and then spread it. There is no risk involved in spreading the information.
• But, when adopting a new idea or behavior, there is a risk vs reward involved. It could affect the person’s reputation, status, identify. In this case, change is not based on contact with the information alone, because there is a risk involved.

If we want to create change….

• We don’t need hyper-connected individuals to spread ideas, nor do we need people who are very good persuaders or skilled mass communicators…
• We need ways to affect the network, so that any person can become the spark that leads to a social wildfire, and we need lots of sparks in lots of locations.
• Our success will depend on how well we organize in anticipation of resistance, and what we do when people who don’t want the change, start mobilizing in response to our growing success.

A cascade leads to change. But it also leads to people to not taking action. Because we notice how other people behave and choose how to respond: Do nothing or do something.

3 scientific principles of cascades:

• Conformity: People conform to the majority.
• The conformity threshold model: Conformity or action depends on the number of people doing or not doing something. There is a unique threshold for each person and for each situation. This is due to an unconscious analysis of risk vs reward: the net benefits must exceed the net cost, so that the person will feel compelled to conform.
• Weak ties between clusters: Any large group of people is made up of a number of clusters. Weak ties (casual acquaintances) have an enormous impact on social networks, the flow of information, the flow of change and behavior. Weak ties form bridges between clusters of strong ties. The weak tie becomes the conduit from one closely connected cluster of people to another to spark change.

What creates transformational change?

“It is small groups, loosely connected but united by a shared purpose that drives this cascading behavior which leads to transformational change.”

How should we start?

Start with a majority. “Even if that is only 3 people in a room of 5. You can always expand a majority out, even if it is a small local majority.”

“But as soon as you are in the minority you are going to feel immediate push-back. And when that happens you are going to feel the urge to persuade. And that urge to persuade is a red flag. Once you feel the need to convince or persuade them, you either have the wrong idea or the wrong people.”

When that happens he suggests that: “You need to back up, go find the majority and empower them to succeed with a keystone change. This is how you get out of the business of selling an idea to selling a success. One way you can help spread that is a co-optable resource: giving them something they can use for their own purpose to move your movement along.”

One interesting example he shared was TEDx. 1000s people promote somebody else’s conference. But they don’t do it to promote the conference. They are doing it for their own purpose. All TED did was allow them to co-opt the resource.”

Call to action

To create transformational change and position design at the table where strategic decisions are made, we cannot and should not drive the change alone. We must…

• Start with a majority: Find a group of people, where we the majority agrees on the strategic importance of Design.
• Go beyond Design as a role, because this is only one closely connected cluster. We must build a network of loose connections to other clusters: other teams, business units, roles, communities of practice… Because the loose connections across clusters within the network will enable cascading change.
• Create co-optable resources to empower others to make this change happen. What is a co-optable resource in our situation? It could a research guide that empowers non-designers to carry out user research. It could the the 10 heuristics checklist that we share with developers, so that they can use it themselves, keep usability top of mind for them, and share tit with fellow others. It could be something else…

Finally, as Greg shared in the podcast: “Our role as leaders is not to push people or make them do anything. But to help those groups to connect. Empower them to succeed. Provide them with a sense of purpose.”

What is your view on this topic?

• What has worked for you in creating change to get Design a set at the table?
• How did you find your local majority and then expanded the change out?
• How did you manage to create a network of advocates across different clusters and groups in your organization or network?
• Which co-optabtable resources have you created and shared with others? Which of these have helped nudge change forward?

Please share your view and experience in the comments to help me and others to drive change more effectively.

Resources:

• Podcast: You are not so smart. Episode: YANSS 274 — How cascades of rapid change routinely sweep across families, institutions, and nations. Listen to this episode for a more in depth explanation of cascades. It fascinating! And worth your time investment.
• Image Credit: Alexander Sinn